George et al v. Rhodes et al
Filing
3
OPINION and ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 21 DAYS, David J Allen and Craig R Freeman & Estate & Heirs terminated. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
RAYMOND GEORGE and
CREOLA GEORGE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil Case No. 13-14465
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
LEO RHODES, DARRYL CHAPPELL,
MAURICE DICKSON, PAULA
GANBRILLAY, TERRENCE SIMS,
KEVIN PAYTON, ELLA BULLY,
DAVID J. ALLEN, DAVID A. MCGREEDY,
THOMAS J. TRZEINSKI, JOHN T. MARUNICK,
KYM WORTHY, CRAIG R. FREEMAN &
ESTATE & HEIRS, LNU, and LNU WARDENS,
Defendants.
_______________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING DEFENDANTS AND
DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs filed this pro se action against numerous defendants on October
24, 2013. Plaintiff seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint set forth a
short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction
depends, a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for the relief sought. A complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, that when accepted as true, “‘state[s] a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.
Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 555, 570, 127
S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when a plaintiff pleads
factual content that permits a court to reasonably infer that the defendant is liable
for the alleged misconduct. Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S. Ct. at
1965). Generally, a less stringent standard is applied when construing the
allegations pleaded in a pro se complaint. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21,
92 S. Ct. 594, 596 (1972). Even when held to a less stringent standard, however,
Plaintiffs’ Complaint fails to satisfy Rule 8.
At various locations in their Complaint, Plaintiffs name the individuals in
the above-caption as defendants to this action. The allegations of wrongdoing set
forth in the Complaint, however, refer to no other individuals but David J. Allen,
Craig R. Freeman, and three unidentified Detroit police officers. In order to satisfy
the pleading requirements in Rule 8, as interpreted by Iqbal and Twombly,
Plaintiffs must assert factual allegations related to each defendant being sued. See
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 55 (holding that, in order to state a claim, the plaintiff must
make sufficient allegations to give a defendant fair notice of the claim). In other
2
words, Plaintiffs must allege each defendant’s personal involvement in an alleged
violation of law. See Frazier v. Michigan, 41 F. App’x 762, 764 (6th Cir. 2002)
(dismissing the plaintiff’s claims where the complaint did not allege which of the
named defendants were personally involved in or responsible for each alleged
violation of the plaintiff’s rights); Griffin v. Montgomery, No. 00-3402, 2000 WL
1800569, at *2 (6th Cir. Nov. 30, 2000) (requiring allegations of personal
involvement against each defendant). Plaintiffs additionally fail to provide any
time-frame as to when the alleged misconduct occurred.
Furthermore, the Complaint names Raymond and Creola George as
Plaintiffs. Nevertheless, Creola George neither signed the Complaint as required
under Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor submitted an affidavit
in support of the application to proceed in forma pauperis as required in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). To the extent she intends to proceed as a plaintiff in this lawsuit and
avoid paying the filing fee, Ms. George must sign the amended complaint and
submit the necessary affidavit.
For these reasons, the Court is ordering Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint. However, for the reasons discussed below, the amended complaint
shall not name David J. Allen or “Craig R. Freeman & Estate & Heirs” (or Craig R.
Freeman) as a defendant.
3
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that David J. Allen engaged in
misconduct while sitting as the judge on a criminal case against Plaintiff Raymond
George. “It is well established,” however, “that judges are entitled to absolute
judicial immunity from suits for money damages for all actions taken in the judge’s
judicial capacity, unless these actions are taken in the complete absence of any
jurisdiction.” See Bush v. Rauch, 38 F.3d 842, 847 (6th Cir. 1994). The actions
Judge Allen is described in the Complaint to have taken were performed in
accordance with his duties as a judge. In other words, there were not taken in the
“complete absence of any jurisdiction.” Judge Allen therefore is entitled to
absolute immunity with respect to Plaintiffs’ allegations.
With respect to Craig R. Freeman, Plaintiffs allege that he served as Plaintiff
Raymond George’s counsel during the criminal proceedings and provided
ineffective assistance of counsel. Plaintiffs also allege that Attorney Freeman
committed fraud by collecting $1,500.00 from them for Plaintiff Raymond
George’s representation even though he was a court appointed attorney. Plaintiffs’
claims against Attorney Freeman alleging essentially legal malpractice and fraud
are state law claims over which this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. There
is no diversity of citizenship between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and the
Court does not have supplemental jurisdiction over these claims under 28 U.S.C.
4
§ 1367. The claims are not “so related to” Plaintiffs’ claims alleging unlawful
arrest and excessive force (to the extent those claims are even asserted under
federal law) “that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III
of the United States Constitution.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (granting federal court’s
“supplemental jurisdiction over all claims that are so related to claims in the action
within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy
under Article III of the United States Constitution.”).
In short, Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not satisfy Rule 8’s pleading
requirements with respect to any defendant but Defendants Allen and Freeman.
Defendant Allen, however, is absolutely immune from the claims asserted by
Plaintiffs; and the Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant
Freeman.
Therefore, within twenty one (21) days of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file an
amended complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and this
Opinion and Order or this action will be dismissed without prejudice. In the
caption of their amended complaint, Plaintiffs shall number each defendant or find
some other way to make clear to the Court who they intend to sue. Plaintiffs’
Complaint against Defendant David J. Allen is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE and against Defendant Craig R. Freeman & Estate & Heirs is
5
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and these defendants are dismissed as
parties to this lawsuit.
SO ORDERED.
Date: October 31, 2013
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copy to:
Raymond and Creola George
14525 Lauder
Detroit, MI 48227
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?